Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85161
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.174 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5508B7BA.6000108@gmail.com>
References: <CAMc0WS5TRMGtFkPAJ5rrxyu+96GPnbMrOwUEd7+PaDnt8UXJZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+kxMuQFu6MmfvfwjuUp_dAF7Oapy9N_nuq3=c3K0pLPmOactg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5508B7BA.6000108@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:21:18 +1100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5fa8SMvuSyA_NKQkLpzmFNZsVLNf=zNxYn+LALoim7mw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>, Stelian Mocanita <stelian.mocanita@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Vote process change proposal
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Stanislav Malyshev
<smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I think having clearer rules about what lobbying is permitted, and
>> introducing some rules on who can vote on what would be a better way
>> of limiting the effect of lobbying.
>
> And pretty soon we'll have 100-page law codex about rules of campaigning
> and campaign expenditures and what can be said to whom in which place in
> whose presence. All of which of course would be completely unenforceable
> but breed more and more allegations of violations and mistrust and
> gamesmanship. And this is to limit the mythical "effect of lobbying" the
> existence of which is absolutely without proof. I think this is a
> solution is desperate search of a non-existing problem. Let's just
> recognize "lobbying" in our case is called "discussion" and try to make
> it productive instead of disabling it.

Private emails, pressure and what many, including myself, consider as
harassment is a big issue in many OSS projects, and for PHP too. I am
not sure what can be done to solve that but private discussions should
be avoided at any price to avoid such bad things to happen. And this
is the very first basic step to ensure a open, clear and fair
discussion about RFC.

Now, I do agree as well that discussions can be affiliated to
lobbying. But the key difference is that a discussion on the list is
open and should be backed with technical argument (or principles when
it comes to design). Lobbying, and you know that perfectly, is totally
different story. Let be straight about what is happening and do not
hide our head in the sand for the sake of ignoring a growing and
devastating problem. We cannot afford to loose more new contributors,
no matter the reason.